BACK TO DPDP ACT
DPDP Act 2023

Section 25

Alternate Dispute Resolution

THE STATUTE

Original Text

The Board may, in such manner as may be prescribed, refer disputes to mediation or other modes of alternate dispute resolution, where it considers expedient to do so in the interest of justice.

Simplified

Section 25 empowers the Data Protection Board to refer data protection disputes to mediation or other alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms where it considers this expedient in the interest of justice. This provision reflects a pragmatic recognition that not every data protection complaint needs to go through formal Board inquiry proceedings. Many disputes will be straightforward — a company that made an administrative error in processing data, a consent mechanism that was technically non-compliant but caused no real harm, or a data access request that was mishandled procedurally. In these cases, mediation can achieve faster resolution, save regulatory resources, and produce outcomes that both parties can live with. The DPDP Rules will specify the mediation procedure — how mediators are appointed, what qualifications they need, how sessions are conducted, and how mediated settlements interact with the Board's enforcement machinery. A successfully mediated settlement would presumably be recorded by the Board and close the inquiry without a formal penalty. Failed mediation would return the dispute to formal inquiry proceedings. Section 25 connects to the broader trend in Indian regulatory law toward including ADR mechanisms — the Consumer Protection Act 2019 similarly provides for mediation. The provision also reflects the Board's capacity constraints: if every complaint goes to full formal inquiry, the Board will quickly become backlogged. ADR provides a valve.

Common Queries

No. Section 25 gives the Board discretion to refer to mediation where expedient — it is not a mandatory pre-condition for inquiry proceedings.
The dispute returns to formal inquiry proceedings before the Board under Section 28, which can then impose penalties under Section 33.
Section 25 is framed as the Board's discretion to refer to mediation. The DPDP Rules will likely specify whether parties can request mediation or whether the Board initiates it.

Legal Context

The inclusion of an ADR mechanism was influenced by India's experience with consumer dispute resolution, where National Lok Adalats and consumer mediation cells handle large volumes of cases. The Board's 'digital office' design (Section 18(5)) contemplates online proceedings, and online mediation is a natural extension of this approach.

Key Rules & Provisions

ADR mechanism before or during formal inquiry — Board's discretion on referral.

Mediation procedure to be prescribed by DPDP Rules.

Provides an alternative to formal penalty proceedings for suitable cases.

Related Case Laws

Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (2010)

(2010) 8 SCC 24
RELEVANCE

The Supreme Court's landmark ruling expanding the scope of mediation in civil disputes — holding that courts should actively encourage settlement through ADR — supports the Section 25 framework. The Board's ADR power is consistent with India's statutory policy of promoting mediation as a first-resort dispute resolution mechanism.